The BOI Report is at http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/Reports/OtherPublications/BOI/BoiReportIntoF15AccidentMarch2001.htm
I've followed this tragic accident, and its aftermath, with more than passing interest.
This is not the first time military aircraft have descended into high ground in northern Scotland while in receipt of some form of ATC service.
There was a similar accident in January 1966, when a Canberra from 2TAF crashed into high ground west of Inverness, on descent to become "VMC below', to enter Tain Range.
If memory serves me correctly, in the Canberra accident, the aircraft was in receipt of what used to be called 'Limited Radar Advisory Service' (LRAS); and was cleared by ATC to an altitude below that of the local safety height, while heading west along the Moray Firth towards high ground.
In those days, ATC was provided via Moray Radar/Approach based at Lossie using the S264 and CPN4 radars; the former for area/approach and director, the latter for GCA finals. The S264 incorporated both primary and secondary radars, had a max range, I think of 160 nm, and a very good anti clutter/weather filter. If one deselected the MTI, Ben Macdui, Ben Nevis and various other peaks stood out like canine testicles. In the idiom of the day, the term ‘cumuli granites’ comes to mind.
As in the F15 accident, both Canberra crew members were killed instantly. Similarly, it took some days to locate the wreckage and bodies due to adverse weather.
The RN controller involved was court martialled. I understand he was “dismissed his ship” and never controlled aircraft again.
I believe that disciplinary proceedings were also taken against Squadron staff at RAF Bruggen. I'm not sure what the outcome was but involvement in same isn't likely to be career enhancing.
One of the procedural changes adopted by RN ATC (Moray Radar/Approach) at Lossie after this accident was to tell pilots on VFR descent into LFAs 14 & 15 under LRAS that they were responsible for terrain clearance, they were descending towards high ground; that if they became IMC, they were to climb immediately to FL .... ( a quadrantal level based on the lowest safe altitude within 100nm of Lossie, calculated on the current Regional Pressure Setting and displayed in bold font on the tote board above the controller's display); and to contact Moray Radar/Approach ASAP on … (freq).
And all 2TAF descents into Tain Range from VMC on top were via a GCA into Lossie with overshoot across the Moray Firth.
"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"!
In the BOI Report, there’s some reference to what, on any version of the facts, must be a Heath Robinson means of communication between Leuchars and Lossie ATC. Even in the 1960s, there was direct ATC land line comms between controllers (and to Highland Radar at Buchan, too) to facilitate ATC/ADIZ/QRA/MDA responsibilities and radar handovers via GEOREF i.a.w a SOP. The vision of using an ordinary telephone in 2001 to effect a radar handover via an assistant simply beggars belief.
And there’s the hoary old chestnut about the permissive nature of the drafting of orders. Is the RAF using public servants to draft orders these days? As Grampaw Pettibone used to say: “Holy snapping ducks*hit, it don’t take no Einstein to know that an order that’s capable of more than one interpretation ain’t worth the paper it’s printed on”.
Also in the Report, both the AOCIC and the AOC note that while responsibility for terrain clearance must remain with aircrew, air traffic controllers "must be responsible for the accuracy and the safety of their instructions". If so, is this responsibility made clear to controllers from ab initio days?
And if the AOCIC is correct in saying that this is a duty of care issue (and I think he is), then, in the absence of any Crown immunity, the question arises as to what civil liability is imposed on both the controller and his employer, vicariously, if that duty is breached. Or is the controller solely liable if he is on a frolic of his own? Never mind the "it's not in my duty statement" cry (whatever that might mean), did he know, or ought to have known, that the altitude that he approved descent to (4000ft), was below the height of high ground in the vicinity of the aircrafts' track?
Which in turn leads to the questions (relevantly in the F15 matter) of what duty of care supervisors have towards ATC staff, and staff to supervisors, where an individual is not completely fit for duty due to circumstances beyond their control.
On reading the BOI Report, it’s not clear to me if these issues are to be addressed. IMHO, they should; and all concerned need to know what their responsibilities are.
Succinctly put: a SNAFU with unnecessary loss of life, career/reputation and aircraft that shouldn't have happened if the lessons of history had been applied.
Last edited by Argus; 9th Feb 2006 at 05:06.